Here are links to some good back-ground articles on global warming by
respectable entities. One can argue that these reports are 7-8 years old,
and there are newer reports out there, but in general, the authors do not
take a "position" up front. The facts are that 1) the earht warms and
cools, 2) we have almost no direct data (only for perhaps 150 years, good
data for 50-70 years, on a very large and complex system that is not well
understood), 3) the human induced contribution is in the range of 2-4% of
CO2, 4) the most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapor, 5) the sun is by
far the greatest source of heat and heat variation, 6) the temperatures in
the occupied parts of the world are higher than they have been since we
began to be able to gather data. Beyond those, the so-called consensus is
non-existent. Both sides of the argument get funding from those of
like-mind (in most situations, that is why someone funds a researcher).
Climate and meteorology are not as well defined as gravity, and system is
just enormously complex. Extrapolation is dangerous in any system.
My BS-meter goes off when a politician tells me that the science is done, and the issue is closed. It doesn't mean that his general position is correct, but he obviously has over-simplified and is counting on the personal benefits of putting a scare into the populace. There were a lot of people who made a fair bit of money on the Y2K bug and scare. There were a lot of people nervous about Alar back 20+ years ago. It doesn't mean that we should ignore the signs and potential issues, but people like to jump on bandwagons without a lot of personal study of facts, not someone elses summary. We may find colleagues on both sides of this issue. It doesn't make either side stupid or inherently wrong.
<a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/23/12433">http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/23/12433</a> <a href="http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/11961-bCv54N/webviewable/11961.pdf">http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/11961-bCv54N/webviewable/11961.pdf</a> <a href="http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm">http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm</a>
... Bruce D. Bullough ...
Lead Process Engineer
Foth Production Systems, LLC
8550 Hudson Boulevard North, Suite 100
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Direct: +651-288-8598 Fax: +651-288-8551
<a href="http://www.foth.com">http://www.foth.com</a>
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This communication including any attachments, (E-mail) is confidential and
may be proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, permanently
delete this E-mail from your system and destroy any copies. Any use of
the E-mail, including disclosure, distribution or replication, by someone
other than its intended recipient is prohibited.
This E-mail has the potential to have been altered or corrupted due to transmission or conversion. It may not be appropriate to rely upon this E-mail in the same manner as hard copy materials bearing the author's original signature or seal.
Jack Osborn <jhosborn@yahoo.com>
Sent by: <a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=2-XeZjm7TseZytEp9H9a4onz3vm3JRKXgHjYhdYlBocWAzL2-Xzxh5U__Cir270u6CStkM0348cU2bl5Z0zMLo_-O3w">PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com</a>
07/01/2007 11:54 PM
Please respond to
<a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=2-XeZjm7TseZytEp9H9a4onz3vm3JRKXgHjYhdYlBocWAzL2-Xzxh5U__Cir270u6CStkM0348cU2bl5Z0zMLo_-O3w">PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com</a>
To
<a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=2-XeZjm7TseZytEp9H9a4onz3vm3JRKXgHjYhdYlBocWAzL2-Xzxh5U__Cir270u6CStkM0348cU2bl5Z0zMLo_-O3w">PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com</a>
cc
Subject
Re: [PipingDesign] OT: Global Warming Validation
Hi Steve.....
I'll put in my two cents, knowing that Chris has chimed in on the side of
the vast majority of climate scientists (at least that is what I
hear.....) who say that the global warming is man-made.. I will try to
live my life supporting their hypothesis.....living small and trying to be
as carbon neutral as possible because I feel that that is close to how I
live my life anyway. I don't live in a big house, live close to work, try
to be energy efficient and use mass transit as much as possible, and am
fortunate to be in a climate temperate locate. I try not try to waste. But
as this issue goes, I do not know the answer, but I must say I am
generally a skeptic. After all, Science has been wrong before and will
most likely be wrong again.
And of course science has been many many times too.
I keep going back to a diagram I saw (in an article written by peter huber) that related the worlds carbon flux; the atmosphere holding about 730 billion tons; and the interchange between the atmosphere and vegetation & soil (vegetation & soil holding 2000 billion tons) being about 120 billion tons up to the atmosphere and 119 billion tons down to earth, the interchange between land use and the atmosphere 1.7 billion tons up and 1.9 billion tons down; the interchange between the oceans (the oceans holding 38,000 billion tons) and the atmosphere at 88 billion tons up and 90 billion tons down; fossil fuels (homes, industry and transportation) add 6.3 billion tons, but do not soak any up. So I see the contribution of the human society's carbon to the atmospheric balance, but I also see that in terms of percentages, it is not much. But I understand that his small bit could kick start the warming cycle, if we agree that the warming and cooling cycles have always been and always will occur.....in the end, who really knows? I think most scientist will say that the have temperature data from the past and they have computer models for the future.
As the world population moves toward 8 and 9 billion people, anything humanity does will tax the world's natural resources and have consequences. This is why I tend to go along with the argument. I also now that Americans will be asked to do their part; some think because it is fair, some because we need to "payback" the world for causing this event. As our culture and civilizations grow more sophisticated and advanced we will need more energy and will find it in order to survive.
I do believe in the quest for doing things that are sustainable. I still see fancy vacation homes with beautiful river rock walls or granite slabs in their kitchen and wonder if this is a good thing to foster. There are only so many rocks available, only so much granite available, sometimes wonder about the quest for all things from "nature". Shouldn't we be encouraging things "recyclable"?
To blame the last century's quest for oil for all our ills means we must also blame coal, and strip mining, and whaling, and large net fishing trawlers, and water politics and water waste, and logging, and political acts of imperialism....so much others...all, I would argue, acts of a less knowing and less sophisticated culture. But if not the west, it would be another culture that would lead the way.....as wasteful as the path has been. It is a consequence of a world that now supports 7 billion people, many of them starting to move into lifestyles that for many years, we in the west were only fortunate to have.
ok....I'll stop now....(smile)
Jack
510 242 - 3094
Gents
Has anyone found a step-by-step validation of the currently held belief
that
our planets atmospheric temperature is being increased significantly by
man
made activity?
To date I have assumed it (man made global warming) to be true based on three things:
plus some vague conclusions drawn during my time as a combustion engineer.
One would have to be an idiot, however, to deny that C02 production is
increasing.
2) CO2 production mostly results from exothermic chemical
process. Burning
fossil fuel makes heat which raises temperatures. No brainer, although
again
I have never calculated the extent. Has anyone seen a heat balance
calculation?
3) My usual reference document for passing interest global topics is New
Scientist magazine. They said so, so I went along because I have found
them
reliable on a number of topics.
Currently, I have a few mates who claim the whole global warming thing is
crap and can be explained away by solar emission intensity cycles. I
looked
at this about 5 years ago, but discounted it due to, from memory,
reference
(3). It is a strong argument though.
With some horror I realised that my diasgreement with my mates is based on
belief (in science) rather than science (itself).
So I would appreciate some guidance in directing me to a justifiable scientific path that can support, or refute the man made global warming concept.
Google cant
do this - yet, so the war of the robots is not here - yet.
Thanks in anticipation.
Steve
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________________________________________________________\
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links Received on Mon Jul 02 12:12:00 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 04 2008 - 11:40:51 EST